I’m not quite sure why, but I never fully warmed up to Ted, perhaps because I was literally there when he first ran for office. Then too, beyond Chappaquiddick itself I never fully connected with him. I’m not sure what was happening in my life at that moment but I never engaged at the time of his 1980 attempt to push Carter out of the way for re-nomination, something that in retrospect seemed absurd given Kennedy's own past and that Carter was a sitting president, albeit unpopular in many ways. Perhaps my relative distance from it all was because I was in my first year of being a practicing lawyer at a big law firm.
In any case, for me Ted lacked the most endearing qualities of his brothers, John’s charisma, charm and gentle humor, and Bobby’s late blooming but authentic love affair with the poor and destitute. Ted seemed more an institutionalized Kennedy which over the years of his Senate service seemed to become even more the case. His failed marriage and his own drinking (on top of Joan’s) hardly served him or his image well. It wasn’t until after the trial of his nephew that he seemed to find a new beginning of sorts with his new wife, albeit after 30 years in the Senate. And, admittedly for me, the 1990’s belonged to the Clintons, not the Kennedys. John Jr’s death and fairly lackluster political pursuits by other Kennedys, culminating in Caroline’s abysmal run for Senate, further dimmed the Kennedy legacy. Ted continued to contribute, and I appreciate him for those contributions, but his time had passed. It was, indeed, time for a new generation of leadership, as his brother John had exclaimed in 1960, and Ted threw his considerable weight and influence behind Obama.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
My Thoughts on Ted Kennedy
My thoughts on Ted Kennedy are reflected in a very well-written article in today’s Los Angeles Times by Janet Hook entitled “Tragedy, Scandal, and a Will to Persevere” and in an email I wrote to Hook in response.
Immediately below is my email. Hook’s article is below that.
Janet,
Thanks for a well written piece this morning in the Los Angeles Times on the meaning of Ted Kennedy to so many Americans, or should I say the meanings. Unlike many, and in contrast to Larry Sabato’s observation, I remain ambivalent rather than having my mind made up. I neither love nor hate Ted Kennedy.
I was a 19 year old college student at Brandeis University on the outskirts of Boston in 1962 when Ted ran for his brother’s Senate seat. I can still recall his Democratic opponent’s charge that if his name had been Edward Moore his candidacy would have been a joke. As a young political science major, I too thought that nepotism and dynasty were trumping competency, although both his primary and general election opponents also owed their successes to family names.
You have nicely chronicled Ted’s history through the 1990’s that made few of us admirers, even liberal Democrats which I certainly was through those decades and still am. We respected the tragedies that had befallen his family and him but Chappaquiddick represented behavior that was totally inexcusable. I admit that I forgave Bill Clinton his flaws and transgressions relating to the Lewinsky affair, while also condemning them, but I have never been able to do the same toward Ted Kennedy over Chappaquiddick. Chappaquiddick still remains the pivotal event for me in leaving me unable to elevate him to the stature of either of his brothers, not to say I idolize either of them.
But I certainly acknowledge and applaud Ted’s legislative accomplishments and success at refocusing his energies in later years, apparently attributable in large part to his re-marriage. I was admittedly personally disappointed although not entirely surprised by his and Caroline’s endorsement of Obama at a critical time in the Democratic presidential campaign. At the same time, I agree with many who feel Kennedy’s absence in the healthcare debate has been and will continue to be a major loss for the President. Ted had emerged as a powerful voice for liberal policies but able to work with Republicans and others at fashioning workable compromises. We are in danger of losing those kinds of public figures.
Thanks again for your article.
Donald
latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-kennedy-legacy29-2009aug29,0,5230316.story
latimes.com
Tragedy, scandal, and a will to persevere
For many of those mourning Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, what gives special meaning to his life is not only his legislative accomplishments but his resolve through a lifetime of headlines and hardship.
By Janet Hook
August 29, 2009
Reporting from Washington
For many of those mourning Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) during his funeral and burial today, what gives special meaning to his life is not only his record of legislative accomplishments but his perseverance through a lifetime of scandal and hardship.
For others, however, no record of achievement will compensate for Kennedy's mistakes and personal failings.
The 1969 Chappaquiddick episode -- in which he fled the scene after his car went off a bridge, carrying Mary Jo Kopechne to her death -- was arguably the most unforgivable of the blemishes on his career.
Perhaps more than for any current figure on the political stage, "people have their minds made up about Ted Kennedy," said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, who has written a book on political scandals.
Few dispute that although Kennedy never fully overcame his weaknesses, he didn't stop trying to achieve important goals in spite of them.
Kennedy was overshadowed and undervalued early on in comparison with his older brothers.
And more than once, his personal problems hobbled his efforts at public service.
"You can think of at least five points in his career when he could have quit," said Geoff Garin, a Democratic pollster who has worked with Kennedy over the years: Chappaquiddick, the 1964 plane crash that nearly killed him and left a legacy of chronic back pain, a failed presidential bid in 1980, revelations of drunken carousing that emerged from the 1991 rape trial of his nephew.
Then there were the tragedies -- the assassinations of his two brothers, the cancer that two of his children battled, and the death of his nephew, John F. Kennedy Jr., in a plane crash.
Even as Kennedy pressed on with his Senate career, he never escaped from himself.
A decade after it happened, Chappaquiddick undercut Kennedy's 1980 fight with incumbent Jimmy Carter for the Democratic presidential nomination.
The day after Kennedy died -- 40 years after Chappaquiddick -- one of the hottest topics searched on Google was "Mary Jo Kopechne."
Conservative talk-show hosts, bloggers and activists showed little restraint in resurrecting the event.
"Perhaps Kennedy's major accomplishment was escaping indictment for manslaughter over the Kopechne affair, thanks to his family's connections," said conservative lawyer Larry Klayman.
Hadley Arkes, a professor of jurisprudence at Amherst College, wrote in the conservative National Review Online that Chappaquiddick "must mark his character forever."
"The crisis over Kopechne was entirely about himself: his layers of negligence, his utter absorption in his own interests, and saving his public position," Arkes wrote.
The negative judgments only hardened after the 1991 incident at his family's Palm Beach, Fla., compound that led to the rape trial of his nephew William Kennedy Smith.
Trial testimony described the senator waking his son and nephew to go drinking in the middle of the night.
A young woman who had joined the group in a bar and returned to the compound lodged the rape charge against Smith.
Smith was acquitted, but Kennedy's approval rating in the Gallup poll plummeted to 22% and he was forced to sit out a major debate he might otherwise have dominated: the questioning of Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas during his confirmation hearings over allegations of sexual harassment leveled by Anita Hill.
It was a five-alarm political fire, and past time for Kennedy to acknowledge his personal failings with fresh candor.
"I am painfully aware that the criticism directed at me in recent months involves far more than honest disagreements with my position," Kennedy said in a speech at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government.
In 1992 he remarried, to Washington lawyer Victoria Reggie, and his new wife was widely credited with helping Kennedy achieve a more settled, sober life.
When he ran for reelection in 1994, he faced a tough challenge by Republican Mitt Romney, later governor of Massachusetts, who was buoyed by questions about the senator's judgment and by a strong anti-Democratic political tide.
Kennedy won by the narrowest majority of his Senate career, but he still drew 58% of the vote.
That helped him make his final years in the Senate among his most productive on the issues dearest to him, such as health and education.
And his record in the Senate, and his ability to reach across the aisle and work with Republicans, brought a measure of forgiveness there.
GOP stalwarts John McCain of Arizona and Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, for example, both spoke at the memorial service for Kennedy in Boston on Friday night.
"Working in his Senate office, I was always struck by the contrast between the passionate Kennedy haters on the conservative Republican side, and how much affection, trust and confidence that so many of his Republican colleagues had," said Bill Carrick, a longtime Kennedy advisor.
Immediately below is my email. Hook’s article is below that.
Janet,
Thanks for a well written piece this morning in the Los Angeles Times on the meaning of Ted Kennedy to so many Americans, or should I say the meanings. Unlike many, and in contrast to Larry Sabato’s observation, I remain ambivalent rather than having my mind made up. I neither love nor hate Ted Kennedy.
I was a 19 year old college student at Brandeis University on the outskirts of Boston in 1962 when Ted ran for his brother’s Senate seat. I can still recall his Democratic opponent’s charge that if his name had been Edward Moore his candidacy would have been a joke. As a young political science major, I too thought that nepotism and dynasty were trumping competency, although both his primary and general election opponents also owed their successes to family names.
You have nicely chronicled Ted’s history through the 1990’s that made few of us admirers, even liberal Democrats which I certainly was through those decades and still am. We respected the tragedies that had befallen his family and him but Chappaquiddick represented behavior that was totally inexcusable. I admit that I forgave Bill Clinton his flaws and transgressions relating to the Lewinsky affair, while also condemning them, but I have never been able to do the same toward Ted Kennedy over Chappaquiddick. Chappaquiddick still remains the pivotal event for me in leaving me unable to elevate him to the stature of either of his brothers, not to say I idolize either of them.
But I certainly acknowledge and applaud Ted’s legislative accomplishments and success at refocusing his energies in later years, apparently attributable in large part to his re-marriage. I was admittedly personally disappointed although not entirely surprised by his and Caroline’s endorsement of Obama at a critical time in the Democratic presidential campaign. At the same time, I agree with many who feel Kennedy’s absence in the healthcare debate has been and will continue to be a major loss for the President. Ted had emerged as a powerful voice for liberal policies but able to work with Republicans and others at fashioning workable compromises. We are in danger of losing those kinds of public figures.
Thanks again for your article.
Donald
latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-kennedy-legacy29-2009aug29,0,5230316.story
latimes.com
Tragedy, scandal, and a will to persevere
For many of those mourning Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, what gives special meaning to his life is not only his legislative accomplishments but his resolve through a lifetime of headlines and hardship.
By Janet Hook
August 29, 2009
Reporting from Washington
For many of those mourning Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) during his funeral and burial today, what gives special meaning to his life is not only his record of legislative accomplishments but his perseverance through a lifetime of scandal and hardship.
For others, however, no record of achievement will compensate for Kennedy's mistakes and personal failings.
The 1969 Chappaquiddick episode -- in which he fled the scene after his car went off a bridge, carrying Mary Jo Kopechne to her death -- was arguably the most unforgivable of the blemishes on his career.
Perhaps more than for any current figure on the political stage, "people have their minds made up about Ted Kennedy," said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, who has written a book on political scandals.
Few dispute that although Kennedy never fully overcame his weaknesses, he didn't stop trying to achieve important goals in spite of them.
Kennedy was overshadowed and undervalued early on in comparison with his older brothers.
And more than once, his personal problems hobbled his efforts at public service.
"You can think of at least five points in his career when he could have quit," said Geoff Garin, a Democratic pollster who has worked with Kennedy over the years: Chappaquiddick, the 1964 plane crash that nearly killed him and left a legacy of chronic back pain, a failed presidential bid in 1980, revelations of drunken carousing that emerged from the 1991 rape trial of his nephew.
Then there were the tragedies -- the assassinations of his two brothers, the cancer that two of his children battled, and the death of his nephew, John F. Kennedy Jr., in a plane crash.
Even as Kennedy pressed on with his Senate career, he never escaped from himself.
A decade after it happened, Chappaquiddick undercut Kennedy's 1980 fight with incumbent Jimmy Carter for the Democratic presidential nomination.
The day after Kennedy died -- 40 years after Chappaquiddick -- one of the hottest topics searched on Google was "Mary Jo Kopechne."
Conservative talk-show hosts, bloggers and activists showed little restraint in resurrecting the event.
"Perhaps Kennedy's major accomplishment was escaping indictment for manslaughter over the Kopechne affair, thanks to his family's connections," said conservative lawyer Larry Klayman.
Hadley Arkes, a professor of jurisprudence at Amherst College, wrote in the conservative National Review Online that Chappaquiddick "must mark his character forever."
"The crisis over Kopechne was entirely about himself: his layers of negligence, his utter absorption in his own interests, and saving his public position," Arkes wrote.
The negative judgments only hardened after the 1991 incident at his family's Palm Beach, Fla., compound that led to the rape trial of his nephew William Kennedy Smith.
Trial testimony described the senator waking his son and nephew to go drinking in the middle of the night.
A young woman who had joined the group in a bar and returned to the compound lodged the rape charge against Smith.
Smith was acquitted, but Kennedy's approval rating in the Gallup poll plummeted to 22% and he was forced to sit out a major debate he might otherwise have dominated: the questioning of Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas during his confirmation hearings over allegations of sexual harassment leveled by Anita Hill.
It was a five-alarm political fire, and past time for Kennedy to acknowledge his personal failings with fresh candor.
"I am painfully aware that the criticism directed at me in recent months involves far more than honest disagreements with my position," Kennedy said in a speech at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government.
In 1992 he remarried, to Washington lawyer Victoria Reggie, and his new wife was widely credited with helping Kennedy achieve a more settled, sober life.
When he ran for reelection in 1994, he faced a tough challenge by Republican Mitt Romney, later governor of Massachusetts, who was buoyed by questions about the senator's judgment and by a strong anti-Democratic political tide.
Kennedy won by the narrowest majority of his Senate career, but he still drew 58% of the vote.
That helped him make his final years in the Senate among his most productive on the issues dearest to him, such as health and education.
And his record in the Senate, and his ability to reach across the aisle and work with Republicans, brought a measure of forgiveness there.
GOP stalwarts John McCain of Arizona and Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, for example, both spoke at the memorial service for Kennedy in Boston on Friday night.
"Working in his Senate office, I was always struck by the contrast between the passionate Kennedy haters on the conservative Republican side, and how much affection, trust and confidence that so many of his Republican colleagues had," said Bill Carrick, a longtime Kennedy advisor.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
The President Needs to Provide Real Leadership in the Healthcare Debate
I am not impressed with President Obama’s leadership of late. For the second time in a matter of great national concern, he has stepped back from the front lines of crafting challenging legislation and left things to Congressional Democrats. He first did this on the stimulus bill, letting House Democrats craft the legislation. That was a mistake. He is doing it again with respect to healthcare legislation and this time it has been a disaster.
During the Democratic primary campaign, Obama at one point compared himself to President Ronald Reagan as a transformational president. Obama was not endorsing Reagan’s policy preferences but, rather, seemingly embracing Reagan’s leadership style which Obama saw as providing overall policy guidance while leaving the details to others. This seems to be precisely what Obama has been doing.
President Obama has continued to articulate abstract principles regarding his approach to healthcare but has avoided the nitty gritty. Yet, it is precisely this nitty gritty that many of us are searching for. We want a clearer picture of Obama’s healthcare approach. How is a public option going to function? How will it be financed? Will it drive the private healthcare sector to extinction? Is it the precursor to a single payer system? Is a public option consistent with the President’s assurances that those who are content with their current healthcare insurance can keep it? How will Obama’s approach actually save money while expanding coverage to so many who are uninsured? Will Medicare pay even less to physicians and hospitals than at present and will that endanger the Medicare system, something of particular concern to seniors?
The talk of death panels is a distraction. But the fact that some critics have come up with absurd arguments should not cloud the fact that many remain legitimately confused about the specifics of President Obama’s healthcare plan. The President needs to do more than shed his tie. He needs to roll up his sleeves and delve into the nitty gritty of healthcare reform, and take ownership of his own plan. He must stop looking toward Congressional Democrats to lead the charge in crafting essential legislation. The President, albeit in consultation with legislative leaders, needs to talk in specifics, not merely in generalities, and explain the details of his healthcare program. If he refuses to do that, he may fail even if the Democrats pass legislation. For he will leave the American people bewildered and that will not help Obama or the Democrats.
During the Democratic primary campaign, Obama at one point compared himself to President Ronald Reagan as a transformational president. Obama was not endorsing Reagan’s policy preferences but, rather, seemingly embracing Reagan’s leadership style which Obama saw as providing overall policy guidance while leaving the details to others. This seems to be precisely what Obama has been doing.
President Obama has continued to articulate abstract principles regarding his approach to healthcare but has avoided the nitty gritty. Yet, it is precisely this nitty gritty that many of us are searching for. We want a clearer picture of Obama’s healthcare approach. How is a public option going to function? How will it be financed? Will it drive the private healthcare sector to extinction? Is it the precursor to a single payer system? Is a public option consistent with the President’s assurances that those who are content with their current healthcare insurance can keep it? How will Obama’s approach actually save money while expanding coverage to so many who are uninsured? Will Medicare pay even less to physicians and hospitals than at present and will that endanger the Medicare system, something of particular concern to seniors?
The talk of death panels is a distraction. But the fact that some critics have come up with absurd arguments should not cloud the fact that many remain legitimately confused about the specifics of President Obama’s healthcare plan. The President needs to do more than shed his tie. He needs to roll up his sleeves and delve into the nitty gritty of healthcare reform, and take ownership of his own plan. He must stop looking toward Congressional Democrats to lead the charge in crafting essential legislation. The President, albeit in consultation with legislative leaders, needs to talk in specifics, not merely in generalities, and explain the details of his healthcare program. If he refuses to do that, he may fail even if the Democrats pass legislation. For he will leave the American people bewildered and that will not help Obama or the Democrats.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Sarah Palin’s Irresponsible Decision to Resign as Governor
Sarah Palin announced today that she would not only not seek re-election as Governor of Alaska but that she intended to resign at the end of this month. Unfortunately, I suspect many of her supporters will somehow find her decision and explanation quite reasonable or better. Within the space of about 15 minutes following her announcement, Pat Buchanan managed to stumble from first fully understanding her decision to not seek re-election but feeling puzzled about her decision to immediately quit to, when next quizzed on MsNBC minutes later, finding both decisions sensible. William Kristol, Weekly Standard editor and a Palin supporter, commented that “Everybody I’ve talked to thinks it’s a little crazy,” but then stated “maybe not,” asking rhetorically “what is she going to accomplish in the next year as governor.” But I found Palin’s decision to resign her post shocking and her explanation pure Sarah Palin, rambling and lacking in any clarity.
Palin claimed that resigning now would be in the best interests of her state. She didn’t argue, as many of her critics would, that resigning now would help Alaska because she simply has been a poor governor. No, she claimed that lame duck governors often waste their states’ resources by hitting the road, going on political junkets and the like while drawing paychecks and that she would be saving Alaska those expenses. Huh? What logic is that? How about simply pledging not to go on political junkets or otherwise waste state resources and remaining in the governor’s office to provide leadership to her state through the end of her term? Surely it didn’t take resigning to best conserve state resources. And some “lame duck” leaders actually develop spine during that period in office, being willing to make tough decisions without fear of offending various sectors of the electorate.
And then Palin turned to a sports metaphor in a further attempt to explain or justify her decision, comparing herself to a point guard on a basketball team under attack by a full court press who drives through a full court press but knows when to give up the ball so the team can win. Palin’s decision to abandon office is not even remotely analogous to the basketball player she described. The guard who gives up the ball to another teammate who may be open for an easier shot at the basket isn’t quitting the team! Quite the opposite. She is typically leading the team and remains doing so. A more fitting description of Palin’s actions may be found in former President Harry Truman’s statement about political leadership? “If you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen.” That appears to me to be a far more apt description of what Sarah Palin did today.
Some speculate that Palin has decided to exit politics and return to life as a private citizen. She noted today that her family approved of her decision and that her son Trig needed her and that she needed him even more. Some speculate that she may want to escape the political criticism she has increasingly experienced as Alaska governor. She has been under increasing political pressure, including a considerable decline in her support at home although still over 50% and an apparently highly critical piece in this month’s Vanity Fair, which I have not yet read. If her decision was based on a desire to abandon public life and return to private life, then quitting as governor without further delay might make some sense, at least on a purely personal level, although leaving such a major political post long before the expiration of her term, after having vigorously sought it and even run as the vice presidential candidate of the Republican Party, seems bizarre and certainly an abdication of the responsibilities she agreed to discharge.
But her other comments today strongly suggested that she has no intention of leaving the political stage. Rather, she spoke of working from the outside and that her decision was a sign of “no more politics as usual.” Most believe, myself included, admittedly without knowing, that Palin will seek higher office and will likely pursue the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 2012. If that is her plan, resigning the governorship at this point is irresponsible and hopefully even those who lean in her direction will recognize it as such. Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty has announced that when his term as governor expires in 2010 he will not seek re-election. That appears linked to his presidential ambition. And that makes sense. Were Palin to have served out her current position until 2010 and not sought re-election, that too would have made good sense and would have been responsible. Few of us appreciate politicians who run or re-run for an office, pledging to remain for the full term, only to jump ship early to pursue a presidential nomination and essentially abdicate their responsibilities after re-election by turning their attention to seeking the nomination.
But, if it is part of a strategy to seek, or to consider seeking, higher elective office, for Palin to resign her gubernatorial position at this juncture and to abandon the leadership role she promised to provide her state, particularly for the reasons she gave, is irresponsible. It shows poor judgment and the absence of leadership qualities. I sincerely hope that voters in and out of Alaska of all political persuasions take note of this decision and remember it in the next year or two if Sarah Palin turns her sights toward the presidency. However, it is likely that Palin’s supporters will find this to be a shrewd, wise and courageous decision. That is too bad.
Palin claimed that resigning now would be in the best interests of her state. She didn’t argue, as many of her critics would, that resigning now would help Alaska because she simply has been a poor governor. No, she claimed that lame duck governors often waste their states’ resources by hitting the road, going on political junkets and the like while drawing paychecks and that she would be saving Alaska those expenses. Huh? What logic is that? How about simply pledging not to go on political junkets or otherwise waste state resources and remaining in the governor’s office to provide leadership to her state through the end of her term? Surely it didn’t take resigning to best conserve state resources. And some “lame duck” leaders actually develop spine during that period in office, being willing to make tough decisions without fear of offending various sectors of the electorate.
And then Palin turned to a sports metaphor in a further attempt to explain or justify her decision, comparing herself to a point guard on a basketball team under attack by a full court press who drives through a full court press but knows when to give up the ball so the team can win. Palin’s decision to abandon office is not even remotely analogous to the basketball player she described. The guard who gives up the ball to another teammate who may be open for an easier shot at the basket isn’t quitting the team! Quite the opposite. She is typically leading the team and remains doing so. A more fitting description of Palin’s actions may be found in former President Harry Truman’s statement about political leadership? “If you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen.” That appears to me to be a far more apt description of what Sarah Palin did today.
Some speculate that Palin has decided to exit politics and return to life as a private citizen. She noted today that her family approved of her decision and that her son Trig needed her and that she needed him even more. Some speculate that she may want to escape the political criticism she has increasingly experienced as Alaska governor. She has been under increasing political pressure, including a considerable decline in her support at home although still over 50% and an apparently highly critical piece in this month’s Vanity Fair, which I have not yet read. If her decision was based on a desire to abandon public life and return to private life, then quitting as governor without further delay might make some sense, at least on a purely personal level, although leaving such a major political post long before the expiration of her term, after having vigorously sought it and even run as the vice presidential candidate of the Republican Party, seems bizarre and certainly an abdication of the responsibilities she agreed to discharge.
But her other comments today strongly suggested that she has no intention of leaving the political stage. Rather, she spoke of working from the outside and that her decision was a sign of “no more politics as usual.” Most believe, myself included, admittedly without knowing, that Palin will seek higher office and will likely pursue the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 2012. If that is her plan, resigning the governorship at this point is irresponsible and hopefully even those who lean in her direction will recognize it as such. Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty has announced that when his term as governor expires in 2010 he will not seek re-election. That appears linked to his presidential ambition. And that makes sense. Were Palin to have served out her current position until 2010 and not sought re-election, that too would have made good sense and would have been responsible. Few of us appreciate politicians who run or re-run for an office, pledging to remain for the full term, only to jump ship early to pursue a presidential nomination and essentially abdicate their responsibilities after re-election by turning their attention to seeking the nomination.
But, if it is part of a strategy to seek, or to consider seeking, higher elective office, for Palin to resign her gubernatorial position at this juncture and to abandon the leadership role she promised to provide her state, particularly for the reasons she gave, is irresponsible. It shows poor judgment and the absence of leadership qualities. I sincerely hope that voters in and out of Alaska of all political persuasions take note of this decision and remember it in the next year or two if Sarah Palin turns her sights toward the presidency. However, it is likely that Palin’s supporters will find this to be a shrewd, wise and courageous decision. That is too bad.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Is Obama already a transformational figure? I think so.
In writing about President Obama's speech today at Cairo University, The NY Times noted: "While the message touched upon a litany of challenges, it boiled down to simply this: Barack Hussein Obama was standing at the podium as the American president."
That made me think: had I been asked to guess a few years ago, before I had ever heard of Barack Obama, which country on the face of the globe a rising politician named Barack Hussein Obama was seeking to lead, based upon his name I might have guessed some Muslim country or even an African country with a Muslim presence. Never would I have chosen the United States of America.
Yes, I supported Hillary Clinton. And no, I don't agree with every policy that Obama is currently pursuing, although far more than not. And yes, in many respects, Obama is another American politician, mixing promises to various groups with flip flops on some positions he long ago had seemingly embraced.
Nonetheless, his election as President of this country does represent a profound change, not only generational but also in reflecting the demographic and ethnic changes in this great country.
I have in recent years suggested that this 21st century will not be America's century. That America's half century was the second half of the 20th century. To me, the tragic events of September 11, in a dark and troublesome way, may in retrospect come to symbolize, together with other events, the beginning of the decline in America's hegemony. The bankruptcy of General Motors may also come to symbolize that movement from America's dominance to the emergence of China and other Asian countries as the new engines of development on the planet. Only time will tell and I shall not be around long enough to see what actually happens.
But Obama's emergence and election to lead the United States, whether you like his policies or not or even him as a person, reflects to me that America is continuing to change, to evolve, to adapt, and to grow. He may indeed be a transformational figure, perhaps with respect to the policies he espouses, but more so as a figure who bridges a transition from America as a nation dominated by its Caucasian majority and led in the main by white males to a far more pluralistic country in terms of ethnic mix led by leaders from all the various sectors, be they African-American, females, Hispanics or others. He is the first African-American president but he is the son of a Caucasian mother and an African (not African-American) father, able to call upon his own rich life experiences to provide that transitional leadership.
For me, Obama as President gives me more hope than I've had in recent years that the United States will adapt to circumstances in this 21st century and at least remain a force to be reckoned with, hopefully a progressive and wise force, and a nation that continues to grow and prosper, even as other countries around the globe, particularly in Asia, emerge as major if not dominant actors on the world stage.
That made me think: had I been asked to guess a few years ago, before I had ever heard of Barack Obama, which country on the face of the globe a rising politician named Barack Hussein Obama was seeking to lead, based upon his name I might have guessed some Muslim country or even an African country with a Muslim presence. Never would I have chosen the United States of America.
Yes, I supported Hillary Clinton. And no, I don't agree with every policy that Obama is currently pursuing, although far more than not. And yes, in many respects, Obama is another American politician, mixing promises to various groups with flip flops on some positions he long ago had seemingly embraced.
Nonetheless, his election as President of this country does represent a profound change, not only generational but also in reflecting the demographic and ethnic changes in this great country.
I have in recent years suggested that this 21st century will not be America's century. That America's half century was the second half of the 20th century. To me, the tragic events of September 11, in a dark and troublesome way, may in retrospect come to symbolize, together with other events, the beginning of the decline in America's hegemony. The bankruptcy of General Motors may also come to symbolize that movement from America's dominance to the emergence of China and other Asian countries as the new engines of development on the planet. Only time will tell and I shall not be around long enough to see what actually happens.
But Obama's emergence and election to lead the United States, whether you like his policies or not or even him as a person, reflects to me that America is continuing to change, to evolve, to adapt, and to grow. He may indeed be a transformational figure, perhaps with respect to the policies he espouses, but more so as a figure who bridges a transition from America as a nation dominated by its Caucasian majority and led in the main by white males to a far more pluralistic country in terms of ethnic mix led by leaders from all the various sectors, be they African-American, females, Hispanics or others. He is the first African-American president but he is the son of a Caucasian mother and an African (not African-American) father, able to call upon his own rich life experiences to provide that transitional leadership.
For me, Obama as President gives me more hope than I've had in recent years that the United States will adapt to circumstances in this 21st century and at least remain a force to be reckoned with, hopefully a progressive and wise force, and a nation that continues to grow and prosper, even as other countries around the globe, particularly in Asia, emerge as major if not dominant actors on the world stage.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Jerry Brown: Not Again Please
Below is an email I sent to Los Angeles Times columnist George Skelton in response to his column on Jerry Brown, "Once and future governor?", that appeared on Monday, April 20, 2009 at http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cap20-2009apr20,0,2315392.column.
Dear George,
I offer you my initial reaction to your “Once and future governor?” in Monday’s April 20, 09 Los Angeles Times edition.
I came to California in 1969 at 26 years old to teach at a state university. I voted for Jerry Brown the first time he ran for Governor. As I recall, but you would no doubt recall far more accurately, Brown ran as more or less a traditional liberal Democrat. But once in office we were exposed to the ‘real’ Jerry Brown, or what we thought at the time was the ‘real’ Jerry Brown. With “small is beautiful” as one of his themes, he became Mr. Gadfly (yes, some preferred the title Mr. Moonbeam but for me Gadfly fit far better). He criticized everything while embracing little, challenged all while remaining distant, non-committal and aloof. He seemed to prefer it that way, surrounding himself with some unusual people and some very usual ones, like Gray Davis.
I came to dislike and distrust Jerry Brown and still do. Perhaps he has an underlying philosophy; he certainly has sought to suggest as much but he has never really delivered. His was initially more an aura, of mystery, Zen philosophy, and austerity, than that of a person with a concrete and consistent view of the world, although he seemed to be willing to adopt some identifiable views such as, if I recall correctly, a deep opposition to the death penalty.
But I found him even then and certainly over the years to be a political chameleon. His ‘style’ remained fairly consistent but not his views or positions. And it became impossible to identify the ‘real’ Jerry Brown; there didn’t seem to be one. As he has moved from one political position to another, leader of the Democratic Party in California, if I recall correctly, big city mayor of Oakland, occasional Presidential candidate, and now Attorney General, he has tended to transform himself from one persona to another, advancing plans, agendas and programs often quite at odds with his previous stances, bent or positions.
I understand and accept that people, including politicians, change over time. Surely that has been true for me. But Brown’s changes seem mercurial, superficial and tactical. I decided years ago I would not vote for him again and that remains the case.
In my view, we do not need Jerry Brown as Governor again. While I did not support Obama initially, I supported Hillary, I hesitatingly accepted him as standard bearer once he won the nomination and am glad I did. He is no panacea, but he is a breath of fresh air. His youth concerned me but less so now. We need new leadership in California as well. I do not mean to suggest that youth necessarily begets fresh ideas or that elder individuals are stuck in the past. I’d like to think I bring wisdom and insight to my current position as a lawyer. But I think Jerry Brown will end up simply offering us more Jerry Brown and I think we’d be better off moving on. And, no, I don’t mean to Diane Feinstein. If this state cannot find its way to identifying and selecting new leaders, we’re in real trouble. Oops, we’re already in real trouble, aren’t we!
I hope as the ‘campaign’ for the next Governor of California moves forward you will offer more of your own personal views of the candidates. There is nothing wrong with giving candidates a chance to express themselves through your column but, given your years of political experience, I hope you take a very critical look at all of them. While I have often not agreed with your views (and have written you before to comment), I have come to appreciate your perspective on events and enjoy reading your column.
Sincerely,
Donald A. Newman
Long Beach, CA
Dear George,
I offer you my initial reaction to your “Once and future governor?” in Monday’s April 20, 09 Los Angeles Times edition.
I came to California in 1969 at 26 years old to teach at a state university. I voted for Jerry Brown the first time he ran for Governor. As I recall, but you would no doubt recall far more accurately, Brown ran as more or less a traditional liberal Democrat. But once in office we were exposed to the ‘real’ Jerry Brown, or what we thought at the time was the ‘real’ Jerry Brown. With “small is beautiful” as one of his themes, he became Mr. Gadfly (yes, some preferred the title Mr. Moonbeam but for me Gadfly fit far better). He criticized everything while embracing little, challenged all while remaining distant, non-committal and aloof. He seemed to prefer it that way, surrounding himself with some unusual people and some very usual ones, like Gray Davis.
I came to dislike and distrust Jerry Brown and still do. Perhaps he has an underlying philosophy; he certainly has sought to suggest as much but he has never really delivered. His was initially more an aura, of mystery, Zen philosophy, and austerity, than that of a person with a concrete and consistent view of the world, although he seemed to be willing to adopt some identifiable views such as, if I recall correctly, a deep opposition to the death penalty.
But I found him even then and certainly over the years to be a political chameleon. His ‘style’ remained fairly consistent but not his views or positions. And it became impossible to identify the ‘real’ Jerry Brown; there didn’t seem to be one. As he has moved from one political position to another, leader of the Democratic Party in California, if I recall correctly, big city mayor of Oakland, occasional Presidential candidate, and now Attorney General, he has tended to transform himself from one persona to another, advancing plans, agendas and programs often quite at odds with his previous stances, bent or positions.
I understand and accept that people, including politicians, change over time. Surely that has been true for me. But Brown’s changes seem mercurial, superficial and tactical. I decided years ago I would not vote for him again and that remains the case.
In my view, we do not need Jerry Brown as Governor again. While I did not support Obama initially, I supported Hillary, I hesitatingly accepted him as standard bearer once he won the nomination and am glad I did. He is no panacea, but he is a breath of fresh air. His youth concerned me but less so now. We need new leadership in California as well. I do not mean to suggest that youth necessarily begets fresh ideas or that elder individuals are stuck in the past. I’d like to think I bring wisdom and insight to my current position as a lawyer. But I think Jerry Brown will end up simply offering us more Jerry Brown and I think we’d be better off moving on. And, no, I don’t mean to Diane Feinstein. If this state cannot find its way to identifying and selecting new leaders, we’re in real trouble. Oops, we’re already in real trouble, aren’t we!
I hope as the ‘campaign’ for the next Governor of California moves forward you will offer more of your own personal views of the candidates. There is nothing wrong with giving candidates a chance to express themselves through your column but, given your years of political experience, I hope you take a very critical look at all of them. While I have often not agreed with your views (and have written you before to comment), I have come to appreciate your perspective on events and enjoy reading your column.
Sincerely,
Donald A. Newman
Long Beach, CA
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Do We Care Whether Fineman's Establishment is Mumbling that the President May Not Have What it Takes? Not I!
Newsweek's Howard Fineman penned an article on March 10, 2009, entitled "A Turning Tide?" on the newsmagazine's webpage whose sub-title read: "Obama still has the approval of the people, but the establishment is beginning to mumble that the president may not have what it takes." The article may be found at http://www.newsweek.com/id/188565. I found the article rather lame but, then, I am not a particular fan of Howard Fineman.
My critical email response to Mr. Fineman follows:
Dear Howard,
By way of introduction, I’m a 66 year old Brooklyn-born Californian, Princeton educated political scientist turned attorney whose love of politics remains strong, Hillary Clinton supporter who voted for Obama, and a blogger at http://dnewmanpost.blogspot.com/. I remember you as a young pup on “Washington Week in Review” but I admittedly found the program most stimulating during the Peter Lisagor era.
Your March 10, 2009 column, “A Turning Tide?”, was most distressing not because of your assertion that the so-called Establishment, as you define it, has begun to question Obama’s mettle but because you essentially merely repeat the criticisms, which you yourself describe as contradictory, rather than address whether or not they make any sense.
Yes, Obama is seeking to govern from the center. That surely is no surprise to anyone who followed his campaign, which you did. Given his attempt to straddle the center, it is also not surprising that almost no one is quite content with him since the political center is notoriously not the home of ideologues who tend to mass toward the right and left of the spectrum.
So, some want him to spend much more to stimulate the economy, such as Paul Krugman. Others want him to nationalize certain big banks or even eliminate them, such as Alan Greenspan and Senator Shelby. Still others purport to believe that the marketplace provides the solution to our economic woes and therefore advocate no further government support for General Motors or Citigroup, such as John McCain. But should we really care what your Establishment folks think at this juncture?
What seems very clear to many of us is not only that no one has a monopoly of wisdom in the present situation, not even your friends at MsNBC, Olbermann and Matthews, but that few seem even to know what they are talking about. There is much unchartered territory here and the three sides to your Establishment have proven themselves inept in terms of effectively governing this country and leading it in a positive direction or even, in the case of the media, constructively and knowledgeably commenting upon events.
Unfortunately, it isn’t as if America has an alternative elite standing in the wings ready to try its hand at the levers of power. Surely the Republicans don’t meet that standard. I for one would like to fire all the bank executives and mortgage leaders who led us into this debacle. But who is left to lead? Their subordinates who were often equally culpable and who probably drew up the blueprints for the bank CEOs? Legislators who permitted the sub-prime disaster to occur despite the nation’s prior experience with the savings and loan debacle? Indeed, Geithner, claimed by the Administration as a “must have” when he was drowning in his tax misconduct, was surely very much part of the problem so it shouldn’t be too surprising that he has provided no leadership to date.
I’m distressed by some aspects of Obama’s leadership, most notably his penchant to leave to the Congressional Democrats responsibility to design the specifics of his major legislation. I recall during the campaign when Obama praised Reagan as a transformational president, a view that left me, a Hillary supporter, cold, but in addition he also seemed to hold Reagan up as a model for his own leadership style when he praise Reagan for providing the grand designs and leaving to others the task of filling in the details. If Pelosi and Reid are left to fill in the details, Obama’s presidency will not succeed. But the notion that the Establishment is able to determine that Obama lacks what it takes to be a successful president after the first 50 days of his presidency would be laughable were it not dangerous, given the influence some in your Establishment still wield over the body politic.
While I expect you will claim that you were merely reporting the mood of the Establishment in your commentary, you can and must do much better. I don’t ask that you become a partisan. Leave that to your appearances on MsNBC, such as they are. But step forward and analyze what you report, in this case the vacuous thinking of those to whom you attribute the notion that Obama lacks what it takes. I don’t know whether President Obama will succeed but I surely don’t think I or others can meaningfully decide that based upon events to date. Apart from his continuing popularity in the polls, he continues to show grit, determination, calmness under pressure and a sense of direction. Perhaps rather than merely reporting what your Establishment thinks, you ought to be noting to us and to its members that these so-called leaders have already shown us that they lack what it takes to guide this nation.
Borrowing from your buddy Keith, someone I find far too shrill and narcissistic and not someone you should be spending so much time with, “thank you for your time, Howard.”
Sincerely,
Donald A. Newman
Long Beach, CA
My critical email response to Mr. Fineman follows:
Dear Howard,
By way of introduction, I’m a 66 year old Brooklyn-born Californian, Princeton educated political scientist turned attorney whose love of politics remains strong, Hillary Clinton supporter who voted for Obama, and a blogger at http://dnewmanpost.blogspot.com/. I remember you as a young pup on “Washington Week in Review” but I admittedly found the program most stimulating during the Peter Lisagor era.
Your March 10, 2009 column, “A Turning Tide?”, was most distressing not because of your assertion that the so-called Establishment, as you define it, has begun to question Obama’s mettle but because you essentially merely repeat the criticisms, which you yourself describe as contradictory, rather than address whether or not they make any sense.
Yes, Obama is seeking to govern from the center. That surely is no surprise to anyone who followed his campaign, which you did. Given his attempt to straddle the center, it is also not surprising that almost no one is quite content with him since the political center is notoriously not the home of ideologues who tend to mass toward the right and left of the spectrum.
So, some want him to spend much more to stimulate the economy, such as Paul Krugman. Others want him to nationalize certain big banks or even eliminate them, such as Alan Greenspan and Senator Shelby. Still others purport to believe that the marketplace provides the solution to our economic woes and therefore advocate no further government support for General Motors or Citigroup, such as John McCain. But should we really care what your Establishment folks think at this juncture?
What seems very clear to many of us is not only that no one has a monopoly of wisdom in the present situation, not even your friends at MsNBC, Olbermann and Matthews, but that few seem even to know what they are talking about. There is much unchartered territory here and the three sides to your Establishment have proven themselves inept in terms of effectively governing this country and leading it in a positive direction or even, in the case of the media, constructively and knowledgeably commenting upon events.
Unfortunately, it isn’t as if America has an alternative elite standing in the wings ready to try its hand at the levers of power. Surely the Republicans don’t meet that standard. I for one would like to fire all the bank executives and mortgage leaders who led us into this debacle. But who is left to lead? Their subordinates who were often equally culpable and who probably drew up the blueprints for the bank CEOs? Legislators who permitted the sub-prime disaster to occur despite the nation’s prior experience with the savings and loan debacle? Indeed, Geithner, claimed by the Administration as a “must have” when he was drowning in his tax misconduct, was surely very much part of the problem so it shouldn’t be too surprising that he has provided no leadership to date.
I’m distressed by some aspects of Obama’s leadership, most notably his penchant to leave to the Congressional Democrats responsibility to design the specifics of his major legislation. I recall during the campaign when Obama praised Reagan as a transformational president, a view that left me, a Hillary supporter, cold, but in addition he also seemed to hold Reagan up as a model for his own leadership style when he praise Reagan for providing the grand designs and leaving to others the task of filling in the details. If Pelosi and Reid are left to fill in the details, Obama’s presidency will not succeed. But the notion that the Establishment is able to determine that Obama lacks what it takes to be a successful president after the first 50 days of his presidency would be laughable were it not dangerous, given the influence some in your Establishment still wield over the body politic.
While I expect you will claim that you were merely reporting the mood of the Establishment in your commentary, you can and must do much better. I don’t ask that you become a partisan. Leave that to your appearances on MsNBC, such as they are. But step forward and analyze what you report, in this case the vacuous thinking of those to whom you attribute the notion that Obama lacks what it takes. I don’t know whether President Obama will succeed but I surely don’t think I or others can meaningfully decide that based upon events to date. Apart from his continuing popularity in the polls, he continues to show grit, determination, calmness under pressure and a sense of direction. Perhaps rather than merely reporting what your Establishment thinks, you ought to be noting to us and to its members that these so-called leaders have already shown us that they lack what it takes to guide this nation.
Borrowing from your buddy Keith, someone I find far too shrill and narcissistic and not someone you should be spending so much time with, “thank you for your time, Howard.”
Sincerely,
Donald A. Newman
Long Beach, CA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)